Texas Needs Equivalent of 30 Reactors to Meet Data Center Power Demand
-
I don’t think that this is something specific to Texas’ power generation, which is what I think the parent commenter is complaining about.
I'd rather take their statement for what it literally was. Since that's what they went out of their way to explain. And since you're not them...
Very few Texans I knew (with the number being literally 0)... for years of living there. And myself during that time. Did not have a generator. That's it. Short of them providing any actual evidence of their claim. It's been dispelled. That's it.
Should they have one? I don't really care to comment deeply on that. I didn't see a point to having one while I lived there. So I would assume most people would also come to the same conclusion.
-
First 0 nuclear reactors will be built anywhere in US before 2035.
Texas is actually a renewables leader because, believe it or not, it has the least corrupt grid/utility sector, and renewables are the best market solution.
Even with 24/7 datacenter needs, near site solar + 4 hour batteries is quicker to build than fossil fuel plants and long transmission, and it also allows an eventual small grid connection to both provide overnight resilience from low transmission utilization fossil fuel as peakers anywhere in the state as well as export clean energy on sunnier days.
Market solutions, despite hostile governments, can reduce fossil fuel electricity even with massive demand surge. One of the more important market effects is that reliance of mass fossil fuel electricity expansion and expensive long high capacity transmission, would ensure a high captive cost at high fuel costs because of mass use, in addtion to extorting all regular electricity consumers. Solar locks in costs forever, including potentially reducing normal consumer electricity costs.
-
Why put water back in the environment at all if it's needed to make steam again?
-
Because they use water for more than making steam. Much more water is used to cool the steam condensers and is often just dumped into the surrounding environment to cool off. Turkey Point in Florida has miles of canals that cool this water down.
If you don't believe me, then listen to the IAEA who created a water management program for just this reason:
Countries in water scarce regions, and considering the introduction of nuclear power, may show concern on the requirement for securing water resources to operate nuclear power plants and search for strategies for efficient water management. Experience has shown that nuclear power plants are susceptible to prolonged drought conditions, forcing them to shut down reactors or reduce the output to a minimal level.
-
Thanks for the information.
-
near site solar + 4 hour batteries is quicker to build
But is it quicker at scale? Can solar and battery production keep up with expanding demand? Can it continue to do so over 10+ years? Can it outpace demand and start replacing fossil fuels?
Usually the proper solution is a mix of technologies. It shouldn't be solar vs nuclear vs wind, but a mixture.
Nuclear does a great job at providing a large amount of energy consistently. It's really bad at fluctuations in demand, and it's also really bad at quick rollout. I think it makes a lot of sense to build nuclear in Texas over the long term because it can start filling in demand as efficiency of older panels and batteries drop off, which extends the useful life of those installations and reduces reliance on battery backups.
I also think hydrogen is an interesting option as well, since it's sort of an alternative to batteries, which can be hard to get at scale. Use excess generation for electrolysis and use those for mobile energy use (e.g. trucks, forklifts, etc) or electricity generation. It's also not ideal, but it could make sense as part of a broader grid setup.
Solar is awesome and we need more of it. I just want to encourage consideration of other options so we can attack energy production from multiple angles.
-
They took a risk and got bit by, frankly, not understanding how the system works and basically ate the spikes.
It's the exact same idea as insurance. You don't buy insurance because you think you'll take the insurance company for a ride, you buy insurance to even out your costs. If someone hits you, you don't need to fork out tens of thousands of dollars for medical bills and repairs, but you will fork that out over time instead with more manageable payments.
If you don't want to see scary bills, then pay a little higher average prices so you end up with a consistent bill.
-
Texas is big. You have tornados in the north, hurricanes in the south, and a lot of nothin' in the west. Some areas it makes sense to have a generator, but in many parts, it really doesn't.
-
Washington State?
Washing State has a ton of hydro, because they get a ton of rain in the mountains, thus near-constant hydro power supply. That really won't work in Texas.
I live in Utah and we have pretty average prices (about $0.12-0.13/kWh), which is pretty decent considering we have a competitive amount of renewables and a similar lack of hydro options.
I grew up in WA and we had a lot of cool classes about the geography of the region, especially things like the Grand Coulee Dam. I even took my kids there to show how hydro works. We have dams here in UT, but they're mostly to preserve water for the summer when we get almost no precipitation.
-
Exactly. I have family in CA, WA, and I live in Utah, which is quite the gamut when it comes to electrical generation. CA is by far the most expensive, followed by UT (we're pretty average), followed by WA (cheap due to tons of hydro). CA is expensive because their electricity policies are stupid IMO, UT is cheap because we're somewhat reasonable (too much fossil fuels, but competitive renewables), and WA is cheap because they have more water than they know what to do with (ironically though, their water prices are higher than ours).
I don't know much about Texas, but I imagine it's similar to how things are here in UT, it just scales better since they have ~10x the population.
-
steam cools back to water
That one. The most common methods of condensing that steam rely on large bodies of water acting as heat sinks. Water in those large reservoirs is lost to evaporation, which is exacerbated by the additional heat.
The water in that reservoir must be reserved for the nuclear plant; a drought that drains the reservoir will knock the plant offline.
Air-cooled condensers are possible, but at significantly reduced efficiency, especially in already hot environments.
-
Yeah, build that many minus 10-20%, and fill in the rest with solar, wind, etc. That way you get a good mix of base level production and burst demand.
-
Well, Texas certainly has the space for it.
-
Can solar and battery production keep up with expanding demand?
China is expanding so fast that they are accused of overproducing, and so supply capacity is not only there, it can increase further.
Usually the proper solution is a mix of technologies. It shouldn’t be solar vs nuclear vs wind, but a mixture.
The main benefit of wind is in battery reduction. A capacity equal to lowest night demand. Wind often produces longer hours than solar per day. The predictability of solar allows clear power forecasts, and then enough solar for needs with a small grid connection allowing both monetizing surpluses, and having resilience in shortfalls. Nuclear has no economic or climate roles, for being both too expensive and of too long a delay.
I also think hydrogen is an interesting option as well, since it’s sort of an alternative to batteries,
Hydrogen is the solution for having unlimited renewables and being able to monetize all of their surpluses. It is a bonus to be able to provide emergency/peak power, including renting a vehicle to have bonus value of powering a building. For today, backup fossil fuel generators can still provide resilience value to solar.
-
Wanting to add that Washington, particularly Tacoma and other nearby counties are some of the only major cities whose power comes 100% from renewables.
-
How do you condense the steam back to water?
-
For today, backup fossil fuel generators can still provide resilience value to solar.
And that's the issue. Nuclear is an effective alternative to fossil fuels and can make sense in many areas. What you need is:
- lots of space for waste disposal
- prevent disruption from activist opponents (delays drive up costs)
- enough projects that you get economies of scale for construction (e.g. specialized crews can move from site to site)
- high enough base load demand to fully utilize nuclear
France has a ton of nuclear and it is on the cheaper end for electricity rates in Europe, and they're not particularly well-suited for it.
It's not a panacea, but it should absolutely be considered as a replacement for fossil fuels if energy demand is high enough.
-
not even close lol, having systemic blackouts randomly is not an indication of a good grid.
-
I think they mean "the same forces that led to the grid collapsing every few years -- prioritizing profit above all else, and the government giving zero fucks-- are the same forces which trigger new development to be in renewables with zero regulation or oversight"
Conservatives always write about their broken-clock-right-twice successes in a similar way.
